Tweaked out Bose 901 series 6 mk 2

Soundminded · « **Reply #20 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 03:38 am »

Quote from: TONEPUB on 4 Dec 2011, 03:27 am

so are you guys saying the original 901's actually sounded better then?
I do seem to remember a few bars where I grew up that used them with McIntosh gear that actually sounded decent in that environment...

I don't recommend it. I've eplained the flaws in the equipment as I see it. Most people who call themselves audiophiles don't like them. I think people should listen carefully before they buy loudspeakers. To get what unique properties these speakers do have to offer you have to set them up carefully. I'd bet most people don't even do that.

lanchile · « **Reply #21 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 03:58 am »

Quote from: TONEPUB on 3 Dec 2011, 09:45 pm

It's funny because we've been talking about reviewing a pair on our Facebook page for about a week now.

And the OP here is always threadcrapping on Steve Hoffmans forum about how his Bose 901's are the most amazing speaker in the world, no matter what the topic.

So, much like the Klipsch Heresy's (which we found to be an excellent speaker) and the Technics 1200 (which, thanks to a number of people on this and SH's forum have found to have a lot of potential) I've ordered a new pair of Bose 901's to listen to.

I've only heard them in the Bose store, so curious to see what this $1400 pair of speakers is actually capable of. Everyone in the high end loves to bash Bose, so let's investigate!

You paid $1400 for those particle board boxes...I meant speakers?. oh yeah I forgot They are Bose.

Chromisdesigns · « **Reply #22 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 04:06 am »

Quote from: doorman on 3 Dec 2011, 08:34 pm

Single driver /wide bandwidth speakers??
don

Yeah, he doesn't let anybody else drive them...

Soundminded · « **Reply #23 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 04:10 am »

Quote from: lanchile on 4 Dec 2011, 03:58 am

You paid $1400 for those particle board boxes...I meant speakers?. oh yeah I forgot They are Bose.

I think the current version uses an injection molded plastic enclosure with some sort of cladding. It was probably not a cheap or easy design to arrive at and could not have been built out of wood in quite the same way. Like their wave radio it is probaby a labyrinth transmission line loading.

One of Dr. Bose's stated goals was to avoid the shrillness he'd heard in other speakers. That was even a problem back in the 1960s. Cutting off the top octave wasn't the right answer IMO. Villchur's design for AR3 and Allison's design for AR3a did the same to a lesser degree. Those speakers can produce the top octave when properly equalized but normally have a high end rolloff. Was it deliberate or did they just rationalize it. They used the same false reasoning BBC is now using for rolling off the high end of their speakers.

In my experience if you don't get the treble right nothing else matters. That may explain why there are probably more different kinds of tweeters than all other drivers combined. So far no commercial design has gotten it right. At least that's how I see it.

Chromisdesigns · « **Reply #24 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 04:10 am »

Quote from: TONEPUB on 4 Dec 2011, 03:27 am

so are you guys saying the original 901's actually sounded better then?
I do seem to remember a few bars where I grew up that used them with McIntosh gear that actually sounded decent in that environment...

I think you are on to something there. I've long believed people liked the sound of the older 901's because they heard them so often used as PA and house speakers in bars and music clubs back in the day (generally the utility cabinet version). I played and heard music in plenty of clubs that used these as house speakers.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #25 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 06:39 am »

Actually, I think one of the attractions to the original 901 sound was the unaccustomed mid range headroom inevitable with that many voice coils sharing the load.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #26 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 11:52 am »

Well, one big plus for the Bose 901's, no crossovers. It would be interesting to hook up a pure Class A amp to them and see how they perform then.

Anyone here ever used a pure Class A amp on the 901's?

Chromisdesigns · « **Reply #27 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 12:06 pm »

Quote from: OzarkTom on 4 Dec 2011, 11:52 am

Well, one big plus for the Bose 901's, no crossovers. It would be interesting to hook up a pure Class A amp to them and see how they perform then.

Anyone here ever used a pure Class A amp on the 901's?

However, they sound horrible without the required equalization.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #28 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 12:24 pm »

Quote from: Chromisdesigns on 4 Dec 2011, 12:06 pm

However, they sound horrible without the required equalization.

Then no advantage there for the 901's. If they could get rid of the equalizer, they could possibly sound great.

JLM · « **Reply #29 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 01:03 pm »

I use DEQ with my single driver speakers, primarily to replace baffle step and allow a direct connection from monoblocks to drivers. I also consider the cabinet to be a form of EQ (just passive mechanical), so I'm OK with DEQ. It's still a single driver doing all the work.

But IMO the whole 901 concept is backwards. To compensate for 89% reflected sound you should provide 89% direct sound. That's what intrigues me about speakers using upfiring drivers, tilted up rear firing drivers, or bipoles with fewer drivers back firing. The 901 is just a goofy bipole design and I fail to see why so much effort would be put into a flawed concept (except the B*se made money with it).

timind · « **Reply #30 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 02:58 pm »

Did the original 901s sound better or is it just nostalgia? I ask this as I recall a record store using the early 901s and at that time I thought they were great. This is probably 70 or 71 and I was 16 years old. But I really loved going to that store and listening while browsing the lps.
I still vividly recall hearing Layla by Derek And The Dominoes for the first time in that store and being blown away. About 15 years later I got a pair of the 901 series IVs. Kept them for a few years until the foam rot set in. Aah memory lane...

Chromisdesigns · « **Reply #31 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 05:57 pm »

Quote from: timind on 4 Dec 2011, 02:58 pm

Did the original 901s sound better or is it just nostalgia? I ask this as I recall a record store using the early 901s and at that time I thought they were great. This is probably 70 or 71 and I was 16 years old. But I really loved going to that store and listening while browsing the lps.
I still vividly recall hearing Layla by Derek And The Dominoes for the first time in that store and being blown away. About 15 years later I got a pair of the 901 series IVs. Kept them for a few years until the foam rot set in. Aah memory lane...

Better than what, is the question, I think. I had a pair for a while, too -- Series II's. My first "serious" stereo (the speakers, a Kenwood amp, and Panasonic turntable for $1k from good old Stereo Larry in Columbus...). I thought they sounded pretty good too, and were the first speakers I ever listened to that didn't sound "boxy". And they had a very extended sound stage in comparison to most of the speakers around at the time -- to the point where I could close my eyes and be unable to point out the speaker location. That rig got stolen by some bikers a couple years later, sigh.

IMHO, they were competitive at the time. Beyond sounding familiar (the "house speaker" factor I mentioned previously), they had a nice punchy sound and enough dynamic range and bass to sound good for rock and roll. Layla, indeed, didn't sound bad on that system. I can't speak to what later versions sounded like.

I don't believe they were particularly accurate, and certainly were eventually eclipsed by many better designs at similar price points.

yeldarb · « **Reply #32 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 06:21 pm »

I sold audio back in the mid 70's. Guy who owned the store opened an account with Bose. We got in our initial order of 301's, 501's and the 901's. The 301 and 501 were ok and we sold quite a few, in package systems. The 901 we set up everywhere in the store that was possible. They sounded like crap. Bose dispatched a couple of their folks to show us how to set them up. They arrived, moved the damn things to every location we had tried, and didn't manage to make the speakers sound any better. We sent the 901's back and never sold them. We had that great big amp Bose made, too. Dr. Bose only published distortion specs to 10k, with the argument that the 2nd harmonic was 20K and you couldn't hear it. A valid point, maybe, but it just made the crap that much harder to explain and sell.

HiFiSoundGuy · « **Reply #33 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 06:24 pm »

The back grill are pretty easy to remove on these 901's but for the back grills you need a hammer and a nail to remove the two staples on each side.

If you hit the nail at a 45 degree angle on the staple the staple comes out pretty easy.

Anyone that has 901's needs to try these tweaks to their 901 speakers. I think your going to be shocked

at the difference these tweaks make !!

OzarkTom · « **Reply #34 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 06:43 pm »

Quote from: HiFiSoundGuy on 4 Dec 2011, 06:24 pm

The back grill are pretty easy to remove on these 901's but for the back grills you need a hammer and a nail to remove the two staples on each side.

If you hit the nail at a 45 degree angle on the staple the staple comes out pretty easy.

Anyone that has 901's needs to try these tweaks to their 901 speakers. I think your going to be shocked at the difference these tweaks make !!

Find you a pair of the Mordaunt Short MS30 or MS 35 loudspeakers from the 80's. They show up on Ebay once in a while. Run them without the grilles, and you will be shocked on how much better they are than your Bose 901's.

TONEPUB · « **Reply #35 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 07:42 pm »

Quote from: OzarkTom on 4 Dec 2011, 11:52 am

Well, one big plus for the Bose 901's, no crossovers. It would be interesting to hook up a pure Class A amp to them and see how they perform then.

Anyone here ever used a pure Class A amp on the 901's?

Got a pair of Pass XA200.5's here ready to go...

I thought the particle board comment was particularly funny. Name one $1400 speaker that doesn't have an MDF cabinet. They pretty much all do. Can't knock Bose for that.

jtwrace · « **Reply #36 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 07:45 pm »

Quote from: TONEPUB on 4 Dec 2011, 07:42 pm

Name one $1400 speaker that doesn't have an MDF cabinet.

http://gedlee.com/Harper.htm Ok. Over by $300.

srb · « **Reply #37 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 07:51 pm »

Quote from: TONEPUB on 4 Dec 2011, 07:42 pm

Got a pair of Pass XA200.5's here ready to go...
I thought the particle board comment was particularly funny. Name one $1400 speaker that doesn't have an MDF cabinet. They pretty much all do.

The solid maple cabinet Salk/Jeff Bagby Continuum is $1200, but not exactly $1400.

But maybe the 901s are actually particle board? Doubtful, but particle board is a very different material than medium density fiberboard.

Steve

S Clark · « **Reply #38 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 08:01 pm »

When I was first shopping for stereo in the early 70's, the 901's were pushed in most of the stores, and they definitely had a distinctive sound. But I actually heard them sound good on one occasion. A guy I knew set up a pair for the local community theatre, doing a production in a small venue. He had a Phase Linear amp and a DBX 3? expander. The music was a squeezebox playing a tune for a scene in a Paris outdoor cafe. The sound was expansive and holographic. Compared to my little Marantz 1060 integrated and large Advents, it blew me away. Nearly 40 years later I still remember it.
In the day, set up right, they could sound pretty darned good.

JLM · « **Reply #39 on:** 4 Dec 2011, 08:25 pm »

Excuse me, but 30 or 40 years ago we were all kids. What to h*ll did we know? What had we compared 901's to? How many truly audiophile experiences did you have as a teenager? What audiophile recordings did we "audition with? How good is aural memory after that much time?

I'm not discounting audio epiphanies (my first was in 1976), but we need to keep all this in context.